Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2744 of 2019 Revisionist :- Anita Tyagi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Anurag Pathak,Harshit Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
This revision has been filed by the revisionist with the prayer to quash the order dated 21.6.2019 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No.5, Ghaziabad in complaint case no.668 of 2019 (Anita Tyagi Vs. Vijay Pal Singh Tyagi and others) under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Further prayer has been made to give direction to the concerned police to register the case and to investigate the matter fairly.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA appearing for the State.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist was illegally and arbitrarily treated as complaint. A cognizanable case is made out. There is need for investigation and recovery of articles. Applicant, being a lady, is not in a position to lead evidence.
On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference of this Court.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. As per the settled legal position, the Court / Magistrate is not always bound to pass order for registering the case and investigation on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. disclosing a cognizable offence. It may exercise its discretion judiciously and if it is of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it will be appropriate to treat the application as a complaint case then the Magistrate may proceed with according to the procedure provided under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. It is also clarified that if report is necessary on any point, the learned Magistrate is competent enough to call for report from the police concerned on given points. Further, it is open to the revisionist to raise the question before the court concerned at the appropriate stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present revision is refused.
The revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 ss